Negative result

BBC: Vatican seeks papal miracle proof
The Catholic Church has invited people to submit evidence "in favour or against" the late Pope John Paul II's suitability to be a saint.

I bet they gave a conspiratorial wink and crossed their fingers when asking for evidence against.

Hasn't it occurred to them that asking for evidence might set a very dangerous precedent for an organisation whose authority is based entirely on faith? We might all end up a bunch of Doubting Thomases—and where might that lead us?

Me? I gave St Herman the day off yesterday and prayed to John Paul II instead, but I haven't experienced any miracles yet (unless you count a guinea fowl flying into my garden).

Mind you, spotting miracles seems to be an entirely subjective process. In the words of my old associate, Julian Date to the aforementioned John Paul II:

How do you decide what is a miracle and what is the product of a deranged or devious imagination? I am sure there have been plenty of fakers over the years who have tried to fool the Pope into declaring occurrences in their localities as miracles—the benefits to the tourist trade alone are astronomical. How then do you sort out the wheat from the chaff? How do you decide that a moving statue in Ireland is a miracle, but that a talking chicken in Canada isn't?

I wonder whatever happened to Mr Date. He's been remarkably quiet of late.

3 thoughts on “Negative result

  1. maybe it's time the old alter ego put in a re-appearance, eh Richard? nudge nudge wink wink.

  2. Do they take into account as "evidence" all the occasions that JP spoke to/touched the sick & lame but did not miraculously cure them? Surely this number must be overwhelming, which leaves two options:1) He had no ability to heal them (or whatever), or2) He was imbued with miraculous powers but refused to cure them 'cos he couldn't be arsed with the paperwork.The former sounds less than saintly and the latter positively infernal to me.

Leave a Reply